Agenda item

 

Application Number:			14/01003/FUL
Location:	21 The Avenue, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Proposed two-storey side extension, single-storey side and rear extensions
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Defer
Letters of Rep:		7	Update Report:		None

 

MJC introduced the application as above.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Baker, in view of the proposed alterations to the property and its prominence in the road.  The recommendation is to permit. 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Stephen Clarke, neighbour, in objection

Lives at No 22 The Avenue, and is also speaking on behalf of the residents at No 20 and other neighbours concerned about the gradual erosion of the character of The Avenue.  Cheltenham’s sense of place is created by its avenues of fine houses set amongst trees and gardens, with a rhythm and balance giving a sense of confidence and pride.  The Avenue is one such, a mid-twentieth century planned estate, and entitled to the same protection given to 19^th century estates, for future generations to enjoy.  Has two objections to the proposal:  the first is the poor design of the ground floor east elevation replacing the front door, disrespectful of its prominent central position in The Avenue.  The Planning Officer called it ‘idiosyncratic’ which is usually a euphemism.  The applicant says it could be screened with a hedge, but it is not a question of style as much as one of good design which planning polices aspire to. The design should be worthy of its position and reflect its surroundings.  The second objection is to the two-storey extension on the west side adjacent to No. 20.  The character, rhythm and balance of these detached houses must be taken into consideration, and in this part of The Avenue, houses are separated from their boundaries at second storey level by at least 3 metres.  This proposal leaves no room to screen the wall and interrupts the rhythm and balance of separation.  The recent extension at No 33 on the other corner was a smaller and better design, and Cheltenham’s Local Plan refers to the town’s spaciousness, derived from spaces at the front, back and sides of buildings.  The residents of No 20 are distressed at the prospect of a featureless two-storey brick wall shading their terrace, and negotiation with the planning officer made this worse – the wall now proposed is about a third of the depth of their back garden.  There has been no negotiation or compromise here, and the planning officer does not appear to have paid due regard to the impact of the development, including the ground floor study window overlooking the garden of No 20. 

 

 

Mr Laurence Sperring, applicant, in support

Purchased 21 The Avenue earlier this year with the intention of making a home for his family in the parish where his wife grew up.  Sought pre-app advice on the draft plans from the planning office; the indication was that plans would be approved.  21 The Avenue was built in 1972 and has been little changed since then; it has three bedrooms and one bathroom, and needs upgrading for modern family life.  The original proposal was for a new double garage, conversion of current garage to a two-storey extension, and creation of single-storey extension across the rear of the property.  There were neighbour objections, mostly to the new garage of the east side of the property, and from planning officers who wanted to two-storey extension to be more subservient.  These issues were addressed, and the case officer spoke with colleagues, and said she would recommend the new drawings for approval, as has been done.  Has made major changes to the original plans to take account of concerns:  removed new double garage, altered two-storey extension in a number of ways, set upstairs back from ground floor, set roofline down from the main house, removed the gable, and moved the extension back to make is subservient.  Residents at Nos 20 and 22 have raised concerns about loss of light; No 22 is 20metres away and will suffer no loss of light, and the proposal complies with the 45 degree light test with regard to No 20.  The garden of No 20 is in its own shadow most of the day, and the proposed two-storey extension at No 21 will in fact cast a shadow over its own garden.  The Avenue is characterised by large individual houses, which have had the chance to develop over many years, while No 21 has remained unchanged for more than 40 years.  The plans are sympathetic to the current style of the house, will use matching brick and materials to the front and sides, and will improve the appearance of the house in keeping with others in the road.

 

 

Member debate:

PB:  asked for this application to come to Planning Committee as some councillors have never been down this quiet cul-de-sac and do not realise what a special road it is – beautifully spaced, open, with houses set back from the road.  Has sympathy with the applicant, as something clearly needs to be done with the house, but it is a hugely prominent corner plot, and he cannot understand the design of the extension from the east side.  Can this be classified as good design? If so, doesn’t know what the objective is.  Is concerned by the massing and scale of the side elevations, and the gaps between the houses – these are a feature of the road; how would we consider an application to make othergarages into a two-storey side extension, which would surely detract from the attractiveness of the road?  Has big concerns about the design and is tempted to move to refuse on design grounds, but if the scheme is permitted, there are two windows which overlook the neighbouring garden, and these would be better if opaque.

 

MS:  agrees with PB inasmuch that this area is a unique place, characterised by houses of different design.  This proposal offers another different design and, as such, enhances the house.  It is a little bit unusual with its up and down elevation, but can see nothing wrong with this – there are lots of different houses in The Avenue.  Supports the officer recommendation to permit.

 

CN:  has a question:   a couple of the objectors talked about the extension being two times the size of the house – is this mathematically correct?  Agrees with PB – knows the area well, and considers it beautiful and unique.  Has sympathy with the applicant because this house is at such a critical point of the street – on the corner, in the centre of the development, forming a fundamental part of The Avenue – but has problems with both sides of the extension.  The east side is a strange design and will look very odd to anyone walking along The Avenue.  The two-storey extension on the other side is going to obscure the view, and undermine the continuity of the design of The Avenue.  Found the site visit invaluable, and is uncomfortable with what is being proposed.

 

MJC, in response:

-          the issues boil down to the prominence of the site – which is why this application is at Committee;

-          the east elevation has a double gable roof pitch; officers thought long and hard about whether this is appropriate, bearing in mind that the drawings don’t always help or offer oblique views of the proposal;

-          the projection of the side extension is narrow - only 1.4m – and this will be dominated by the two-storey mass behind it.  Officers feel this will be an acceptable addition to the property – prominent but not harmful;

-          it’s true to say that the area has special characteristics, but the proposal is subservient and respectful and the gap between properties is maintained;

-          as MS said, the road has special qualities, one of which is variety of properties, and the different widths of the spaces between them;

-          PB asked about future applications to build over garages, but the common scenario in built-up areas is a first come, first served policy – although this is normally relevant in more built-up areas than this.  Could the neighbour on the other side explore the idea of extending – this would be for future consideration, and is the approach used throughout the borough;

-          regarding the windows on the side – it is a fair comment that these should be fitted with obscure glass.  The windows serve a bathroom and a study.  Would support a condition to stipulate obscure glazing if they committee wants to add it. 

 

BF:  how much of this proposed extension would be allowed under permitted development rights?  The house has a massive garden and doesn’t front to the road. Wonders if the double pitch roof has Velux windows?  Agrees that the design is slightly strange, but as MS says, all the houses in the road are different, and different doesn’t equal wrong.  As this is the biggest plot on The Avenue, is quite glad that the applicant didn’t want to build a second house in the garden.  With regard to the house opposite, notes that houses are much closer together along from there, and also that house design and the gaps between vary, because people want more space, more bathrooms and so on.  The design is not bad, even if it would not be his choice; the front door is acceptable where it is – not in the middle but that’s OK.  On balance, the proposal is not too bad.

 

PT:  knows The Avenue extremely well, having been a regular visitor to a friend there, and thinks that one of the big problems here is that the house looks rather stark, with not much in the way of trees.  On the left-hand side of The Avenue, there are big old houses masked by trees, offering shade and shadow all the way down; this house does not have the biggest garden.  However, doesn’t think there is anything wrong with this, and will be supporting it.

 

CN:  would like an answer to his question, regarding whether the extension actually in doubling the size of the house.  Also, adding to issues raised by BF, has been studying the plan, and notes that only a small extension on the back of No 33 is shown – noted on Planning View that work on the new extension there is in progress.  This property is in a prime location, which is unfortunate for the applicant.  Has the impression that planning officers expressed a preference for a softer look for the sloped roof on the east side of the design – is this correct?

 

MJC, in response:

-          apologies for missing the question earlier.  It is not correct to consider extensions mathematically.  Officers ask whether a proposed extension is respectful, and whether it is subservient to the existing building.  This extension is large but does not double the size of the property;

-          the proposal has been assessed against policy and the relevant SPD on residential extensions, and is considered acceptable.  It is not a mathematical calculation, but taking into account the buildings, the locality, and whether it is respectful, officers consider that it is OK;

-          regarding the extension at 33 The Avenue, there a two-storey extension being built there which couldn’t see from garden of application site;

-          regarding the different treatment of the eastern elevation, when negotiating with the applicant, officers suggested an alternative treatment but this was not the only way to do it – if the applicant does not agree, this is not a reason to refuse planning permission.  As Rob Garnham used to say – deciding planning applications is not a question of personal preference – we must consider everything against policy;

-          to BF’s comments about PD rights, in this location, the applicant couldn’t extend to the side without planning permission.  As it is a detached house, it could be extended by 4 metres to the rear, but not at two storeys – so not much of what is proposed could be done without planning permission;

-          finally, in response to BF’s question, there are no roof lights in the double pitch roof – this is the applicant’s preference.

 

CN:  is MJC saying the size of the extension is not important?  Is bemused.  The original proposal was rejected as being too big so the size is clearly an issue.  Has been looking at the regulations, including Policy CP7, and understands that size can be an issue when considering planning applications. 

 

MJC, in response:

-          is not going to say that size doesn’t matter, but policy is concerned with ensuring that what is proposed is truly subservient to the existing building;

-          officers felt that the initial proposal was too much and not in line with policy, and therefore asked the applicant to scale it down.

 

GB:  does PB want to move to refuse?

 

PB:  considers poor design a suitable reason, bearing in mind the prominence of this site in the street scene.  Appreciates that difference is OK, but the design has to have some merit too.  Being different is one thing, but this proposal is horrible and could be better.  Moves to refuse on design grounds. 

 

GB:  reiterated that a condition for obscure glass in the side windows should be included if the proposal is permitted.

 

KS:  wasn’t sure if she was going to speak, but has a few comments to make after listening to other Members.  There are two issues.  Has great sympathy with the applicants - a nice family looking to develop this house to suit their needs - but we need to get all applications right and this one isn’t quite at that stage yet.  Its unusual appearance on the side elevation will alter the look of the street.  The house at the moment is no oil painting but at least it fits in.  This solution is very complicated and will harm the appearance and character of the area.  Is also concerned about the impact the two-storey extension will have on the next-door-neighbour’s property.  Understands that a light test has been done but can see that the extension will be overbearing – can officers add to this?  Has sympathy for the applicants and hopes that they can come forward with something which will work better on this large plot, but it would be wrong for the Committee to approve this scheme.  The design is too complicated.  If it was not a corner plot, may be able to grin and bear it, but in this prominent position, will support the move to refuse.

 

JF:  as the design seems to be the problem, how about a deferral – go back to the applicants to see if they can come up with something more sympathetic.  Would hate to refuse the scheme which has some good points and some awful – all in the eye of the beholder – before going back to the applicants and giving them the chance to come back to the Committee with something it can accept.

 

MJC, in response:

-          regarding JF’s suggestion, officers have had discussions with the applicants already and made suggestions; the proposal being considered tonight is what  the applicants want to build.  They have already made concessions, and a deferral won’t achieve a great deal.  Members should make a decision on what is before them;

-          regarding loss of amenity, the report states that the proposal passes the light test comfortably and won’t have an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring amenity space.  In relatively built-up areas, this type of scenario is normal;

-          this week, to officers’ surprise, an appeal has been allowed elsewhere for a two-storey flank wall extension with a much greater impact on neighbouring amenity.  Cannot recommend that Members defer this proposal.

 

AC:  thinks deferral would be a good idea.  Also has sympathy with the applicant – the house is too small for the plot but the side elevation is ugly.  This will not only be viewed obliquely – it is a junction – and any alterations should be characterful and add to the house.  What is proposed does not.

 

CN:  if that decision is deferred, would that avoid the danger of an appeal?

 

MJC, in response:

-          not necessarily – this would be up to the applicants.  They may choose to do nothing and come back to committee next month with the same application.

 

GB:  does PB still want to move to refuse on design grounds?  Anything else?

 

PB:  no, just design grounds.  Is not against the idea of deferral; the applicant is here and has heard what Members have to say – could come back with a different design next month.  Isn’t sure what to do.

 

CL, in response:

-          planning committee protocol states that if Members vote on the move to refuse and it is lost, permission is automatically granted.  Therefore, if Members want to consider deferring their decision, they should vote on a move to defer first; if this is lost, they can then vote on a move to refuse if still wished.

 

PB:  will agree to move to defer first.

 

Vote on PB’s move to defer

8 in support

6 in objection

DEFER